List Projects

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, whether it includes archived projects, whether results are paginated or sorted, or what the output format looks like. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, these gaps matter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and to the point. For a zero-parameter list tool, this is appropriately sized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the behavior and result of listing projects. It is missing information about ordering, scope, or filtering. Given the surrounding suite of project tools, more guidance on its role is needed for an agent to use it correctly among siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Parameter count is 0, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There are no parameters to document, and the description does not need to explain any. No additional parameter semantics are applicable.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and resource ('列出所有叙事项目' = list all narrative projects), which is clear enough on its own. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from sibling tools like discover_projects, get_project, or set_active_project, which all interact with projects. No sibling differentiation is present.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling project-related tools (discover_projects, get_project, validate_project, set_active_project). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.